Revolution Vs. Rennaissance

[irishslappop]

I have been talking to a lot of my friends about revolution lately because pretty much everyone i know is extremely upset by the state of the United States and most of us feel that a revolution is nessesary to fix thing. Mostly because of how corrupt politics is, it's impossible to tell if our votes actually do something or if they are paid off by special interest groups or mega corperations.

but i was talking to my Buddy the other day about it and he said that a revoultion would be cool, but that he'd rather have a rennaissance. I thought this was a pretty awesome idea and decided i'd rather influence the coming of rennaissance.

which would you prefer to influence, or if you wouldn't want either, why?

[guitrguy]

Renaissance. It has this weird tendency to bring the best out of people.

[pedro durruti]

Renaissances are pretty much long revolutions and generally more natural

[1338 h4x0r]

I voted Renaissance because that part of AP Euro History was ballin.

Three-quarter armor ftw

[Independent_CA]

Sometimes people need to be hit really hard to be woken up.

[tablespoonful]

Nobody's going to join a revolution people are pretty content more or less this is the genius of the construction of the gigantic middle class.

[Independent_CA]

Nobody's going to join a revolution people are pretty content more or less this is the genius of the construction of the gigantic middle class.
Ignorant, distracted, and lazy is more like it.

[Reaganista]

the poll is absolute nonsense and the ensuing discussion retarded

[thedeadwalk!]

I have a weird feeling any new renaissance would be led by George Clooney or Oprah, so, of course, I'd opt for violent revolution.

Realistically, I think the best we can hope for is for all of us to make small contributions to the better good. All of these big sacrifices have a tendency to get lost in rhetoric and parades.

Oh, and the whole "revolution for change" idea seems a product of being a teen. Not that it's bad or wrong. I went through it, and looking back, it just seems extreme.

[irishslappop]

im 20, so you almost had me.

the poll is absolute nonsense
this is because....i asked which you would rather prefer? What is so nonsensical about that? you don't HAVE to answer the question.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Hey guys, let's plan a renaissance.

[Knifeboy]

i'll get the guns

[Dave de Sylvia]

I'll get the Greco-Roman influences. We'll meet at the Colossus in one hour to make this thing happen.

[Mr. Ron]

damn it I lost all the poets and writers! :<

[guitrguy]

Hey guys, let's plan a renaissance.
I'll bring in classicisms ad naseum.

[DBoons Ghost]

the poll is absolute nonsense and the ensuing discussion retarded

Well said.

[gregulus]

good thread. would read again.

[irishslappop]

Hey guys, let's plan a renaissance.

wouldn't hurt would it?

[guitrguy]

wouldn't hurt would it?

Then the renaissance already started.

[irishslappop]

and it would take off if people like Reaganista and Dboon would step down off their high horse and start adding to a cause instead of calling it stupid. Whatever, i find it better to have a goal or cause to work towards then dooming an idea that would bring artistic and possibly political prosperity to a country that is floundering right now.

[guitrguy]

Reaganista would probably just sit in his room, and DBoon would actually contribute.

[irishslappop]

heh, Michael Angelo was a total social outcast and no one really liked him, but he was one of the best, if not the best artist of the major rennaissance painters. Him and Rafael [sp??] really didn't get along at all, but they both respected one anothers work. Thats what we need, we need some respect, encouragement only helps.

[guitrguy]

Michaelangelo was an amazing sculptor.

[irishslappop]

oh christ how could i forget? painting was actually his secondary trade/skill right?

[DBoons Ghost]

and it would take off if people like Reaganista and Dboon would step down off their high horse and start adding to a cause instead of calling it stupid. Whatever, i find it better to have a goal or cause to work towards then dooming an idea that would bring artistic and possibly political prosperity to a country that is floundering right now.

The country isn't floundering. Maybe you are. But it's not.

I suppose I'm being selfish. I like the way things are, because I am on that high horse luckily. Though, I have goals to work towards and they involve me doing things I sometimes dislike. Like waking up and going to work.. and the good parts like earning and saving and investing back into the system that gave me my success. Rasing a family.

It's one thing to whine about a life you don't know yet fear then to get into a life and whine about it.

I was the same way growing up. I realize things are messed up for some people. Things were messed up when I was a kid because thats the world I lived in. The same problems. The same whining. With the exception of the fact we didn't have internets. Some poeple get out and some don't. A revolution into human kindness would result with a boring life to me. I use the daily grind as something to work for. Something to work towards. Many people find their peace within the system simply by default. At least I have purpose right now.

I dunno. I've always said I'd go along with whatever allowed me to live a happy life and do the same for my children.

I wouldn't take it too serious though I mean it's just another nowhere discussion on a message board. My opinion isn't one you like and that's ok.

[-1up!-]

Lol lots of futile idealism in this thread.

For once, Reaganista's right. Huge social shifts like the Renaissance happen very gradually, and it's only once you look at it centuries afterwards that historians can realize how much things changed. You think Italian humanists danced around and claimed : OMG we're in the making of a new era!1!!1!!1 Nope.

And you must have a pretty dim knowledge of history if you think the current political climate in the United States is fertile for a revolution.

But hey, let's go guys!! Let's stand away from our computers for a minute and plan a revolution!! lol.

[guitrguy]

Reminds of something my Music History teacher once said.

"Its not like Bach woke up one day, and realized he was in the Baroque period."

[Against Miik!]

Good point. However any events unfold in the future, it is only in hindsight that we would be able to call it a revolution or renaissance. Neither will happen in the near future. Things are gonna have to get really bad. Everybody is too apathetic. Not to mention things, at least in the States, really aren't all that bad.

I mean, you can look at certain things and be like, yeah, sometime down the road, that could really come back to bite us. The increase in executive power for example. Sure we aren't arresting millions of innocent civilians on the street today, but someday, that could happen, and it would be legal. The economic situation we are in isn't the worst we have had but it could get worse.

[irishslappop]

I suppose I'm being selfish. I like the way things are, because I am on that high horse luckily. Though, I have goals to work towards and they involve me doing things I sometimes dislike. Like waking up and going to work.. and the good parts like earning and saving and investing back into the system that gave me my success. Rasing a family.

It's one thing to whine about a life you don't know yet fear then to get into a life and whine about it.

I can see why you wouldn't want o get off the high horse. Things are going well for you, your happy, why change right? i pretty much agree. It's just than in my experience i see human potenial as something so much more than what it is now. I'm a happy person i'd say, but i'd also say that im pretty idealistic and would love to see the human race start to work together instead of killing each other off and fighting all the time. It's been like this since day one, so...idk i guess i just dream of better days.

and as for whining, Im just expressing how i feel that America could be on the decline. It seems that most Americans think that America is invincible and it's really not at all. We need to inrich our lives, stop working so damn much and start living a life that is steeped in the arts, invention[we're pretty good at that already] At this point the middle class just pays the taxes and shuffle papers / put tab A into slot B. worker bees. I guess i just feel like a more culturally rich middle class would be wonderful for the country that's all. im not trying to whine if it sounded like i was.

As for knowing what era we're in, the world is wildly more connected than is used to be obviously. it's easier to analyze world affairs and the well being of the world these days because of the insane amount of media that is available to people who study, read the internet, and make up their own minds about things. It's the counciousness that wields the rebirth, if your not aware of it, how can you be confident in it, and there for how can it happen?

Bach didn't wake up one day and say "im in the baroque period." But i bet bach woke up every day and basically said "so me and my contemporaries [the baroque period] are pretty much kicking *** right now and this **** sound pretty good.


As for idealism, good job, you nailed me, is it such a bad thing to be hopeful though? I try to be realistic, but i find it more suitible to work for and hope for a better day. What is there to be afraid of? it might not happen in my life time? ok. well im content knowing i at least tried and didn't just sit back and go "Wow shits ****ed up hahaha, you poor bastards have fun helping yourselves. im gonna jerk off and fall alseep instead."

[Give me Beer]

http://www.ezln.org.mx

:)

[CarnageFairy]

We're in the beginnings of an electronic renaissance right now.

[wartomods]

look man, this forums over the interweb and such, are true rennacense or revolution

[lfantwister]

Ron Paul R3VOLUTION!!!!!!!

but in all seriousness. As much as I appreciate how the system has given back to me for all I put into it, our political system needs a change.

it'd be pretty sweet though to be like the next generation of bolsheviks (but sweet only if we're guaranteed to win and find a lenin and all)

[Dave de Sylvia]

heh, Michael Angelo was a total social outcast and no one really liked him, but he was one of the best, if not the best artist of the major rennaissance painters.
He's no Buckethead.

[guitrguy]

He was a noob guitar player.

[-1up!-]

like Carnage said, the development of technology, most notably in communications and media, is a sure sign of what may come to be called, with hindsight, the "electronic age" or something along these lines. The development of Internet, single-handedly, has affected our lives (and will keep changing them further) and the way we interact in ways unprecedented. The simple fact that we can browse what's happening on the far side of the planet with a few easy clicks is astounding when you stop to think about it.

[monkeysonmars.]

We need to inrich our lives, stop working so damn much and start living a life that is steeped in the arts, invention[we're pretty good at that already] At this point the middle class just pays the taxes and shuffle papers / put tab A into slot B. worker bees. I guess i just feel like a more culturally rich middle class would be wonderful for the country that's all. im not trying to whine if it sounded like i was.


if you think about the history of the developed world our work is becoming less and less important and our personal/social lives more so. Go 100 years back the majority of the population were still just surviving, getting by. Back when politics was really changing it's because people's lives were ****. You've got to accept the way politics now is a trade off, not a decline, we've become detached from democracy because we're lucky enough to have better priorities (our kids, our family, friends).

[monkeysonmars.]

like Carnage said, the development of technology, most notably in communications and media, is a sure sign of what may come to be called, with hindsight, the "electronic age" or something along these lines. The development of Internet, single-handedly, has affected our lives (and will keep changing them further) and the way we interact in ways unprecedented. The simple fact that we can browse what's happening on the far side of the planet with a few easy clicks is astounding when you stop to think about it.

i think that'll all be stuck in with globalization, integration of societies, ridiculous travel abilities (they're talking about vacuum tunnels for trains to allow London to Shanghai to be done in 2 hours or something stupid)

[Smokey D]

oh christ how could i forget? painting was actually his secondary trade/skill right?

He's more famous for his painting, though he considered himself first and foremost a sculptor.

You think Italian humanists danced around and claimed : OMG we're in the making of a new era!1!!1!!1 Nope.


They were aware things were changing in a dramatic fashion, though they thought they were going backwards (towards Rome), not progressing forward. The humanists were the first one to make a comparison between the Dark Ages and what we would call the Renaissance.

[Give me Beer]

if you think about the history of the developed world our work is becoming less and less important and our personal/social lives more so. Go 100 years back the majority of the population were still just surviving, getting by. Back when politics was really changing it's because people's lives were ****. You've got to accept the way politics now is a trade off, not a decline, we've become detached from democracy because we're lucky enough to have better priorities (our kids, our family, friends).

Erm, our lives are far more regulated and our work far more integrated in our lives than you imagine. Go back two hundred years and you'll find plenty of people that aren't working all the time. Hell, ever heard of Taylorism? Why do you think he came up with that.

That and de part of the world that lives like us is actually, if you look at the overal numbers, really small.

[MAthiAS]

it'd be pretty sweet though to be like the next generation of bolsheviks (but sweet only if we're guaranteed to win and find a lenin and all)
This.

[monkeysonmars.]

Erm, our lives are far more regulated and our work far more integrated in our lives than you imagine. Go back two hundred years and you'll find plenty of people that aren't working all the time. Hell, ever heard of Taylorism? Why do you think he came up with that.

That and de part of the world that lives like us is actually, if you look at the overal numbers, really small.

I don't know about where you come from but go back 200 years in Britain and people are living in houses without floors, where people are given money by their parish because the money they make in their jobs isn't even enough to keep them alive. Their lives were about surviving, surviving was about working, their lives were about working. Sure people with careers (probably not the majority of the workforce) spend additional time on their job but in no way is that comparable to a time when work was all there was in your life.

also the part of the world that isn't developed isn't really relevant to an argument about the development of America, we can assume they will (at some point) reach a developed stage and go through these same issues.

[lfantwister]

also the part of the world that isn't developed isn't really relevant to an argument about the development of America, we can assume they will (at some point) reach a developed stage and go through these same issues.
the least we can do is speed that up for them

[monkeysonmars.]

that would be great

[Smokey D]

I don't know about where you come from but go back 200 years in Britain and people are living in houses without floors, where people are given money by their parish because the money they make in their jobs isn't even enough to keep them alive. Their lives were about surviving, surviving was about working, their lives were about working. Sure people with careers (probably not the majority of the workforce) spend additional time on their job but in no way is that comparable to a time when work was all there was in your life.

also the part of the world that isn't developed isn't really relevant to an argument about the development of America, we can assume they will (at some point) reach a developed stage and go through these same issues.

I think his point was that there was less work 200 years, particularly in urban settings.

[monkeysonmars.]

oh in terms of unemployment?

you can't compare how integrated work is between someone who has no job and someone who has a job. Work isn't more integrated into our lives, everyone has a job, i don't think it's the same thing. if that's what you meant.

[Give me Beer]

I don't know about where you come from but go back 200 years in Britain and people are living in houses without floors, where people are given money by their parish because the money they make in their jobs isn't even enough to keep them alive. Their lives were about surviving, surviving was about working, their lives were about working. Sure people with careers (probably not the majority of the workforce) spend additional time on their job but in no way is that comparable to a time when work was all there was in your life.

also the part of the world that isn't developed isn't really relevant to an argument about the development of America, we can assume they will (at some point) reach a developed stage and go through these same issues.

Studies I've read contradict you. They seriously do, I don't know where your perception of life 200 years ago comes from, but the fact that a lot of them couldn't make enough to survive does not mean that most people were perpetually working. The Industrial revolution (which only encompassed a small part of the population during the 19th century) had tons of problems with absenteism, the constant "holidays" that got proclaimed etc. That's why I asked if you knew about Taylorism. Seriously, look it up.

Work was hardly all that there was to their life, I recommend you actually take a class on the subject because you seem to be talking popular perception, did you just watch Daens or something. ;)

[monkeysonmars.]

British state, society and welfare from the 1800s good enough for you?

I don't think they were perpetually working I think that work was basically all there was to their lives. go back to 1800 and most people were agricultural workers, poverty levels were very high, there is a limit to what things outside of your work can define you when you're living in poverty.

[Reaganista]

this is because....i asked which you would rather prefer? What is so nonsensical about that? you don't HAVE to answer the question.
it's retarded because you obviously have no idea what you're talking about

and it would take off if people like Reaganista and Dboon would step down off their high horse and start adding to a cause instead of calling it stupid. Whatever, i find it better to have a goal or cause to work towards then dooming an idea that would bring artistic and possibly political prosperity to a country that is floundering right now.
see

[irishslappop]

http://www.musicianforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15899040&postcount=50

[irishslappop]

well looks like some people can say what ever they want and it goes and some cant....

[Smokey D]

Quit it.

[irishslappop]

man if only i had 10k more posts maybe i'd get some respect and be able to just tell people they're wrong without a reason. Seems the vast majority think the thread is ok and the few who don;t cant give a reason.

oh well. Ban me.

Hey reganista! i found a picture i snapped of you on our last date!

[Smokey D]

Just quit bitching at each other and I'll let you post whatever you want.

[irishslappop]

kay.

[Give me Beer]

British state, society and welfare from the 1800s good enough for you?

I don't think they were perpetually working I think that work was basically all there was to their lives. go back to 1800 and most people were agricultural workers, poverty levels were very high, there is a limit to what things outside of your work can define you when you're living in poverty.

I disagree with your viewpoint, seriously. Poverty levels might be high but work wasn't that integrted as you make it seem. I don't have the time to go looking up the relevant studies right now, but I might have some next week (starting tuesday) I'll be happy to cite you some then. ;)

You still haven't answered me though, do you know what Taylorism is? Why do you think he came up with that? The need to control the "worker" in the factory and even out
side of it? The complaints about the working man taking too flexible hours, flexible days and refusing to stay in one place but constantely getting up and moving? Why do you think Napoleon introduced the Cahiers?

[totah]

I have been talking to a lot of my friends about revolution lately because pretty much everyone i know is extremely upset by the state of the United States and most of us feel that a revolution is nessesary to fix thing. Mostly because of how corrupt politics is, it's impossible to tell if our votes actually do something or if they are paid off by special interest groups or mega corperations.

but i was talking to my Buddy the other day about it and he said that a revoultion would be cool, but that he'd rather have a rennaissance. I thought this was a pretty awesome idea and decided i'd rather influence the coming of rennaissance.

which would you prefer to influence, or if you wouldn't want either, why?

A revolution, properly executed, will create a post-revolutionary rennaissance. I guess this opinion means I come under the "**** you I'm an anarchist" voter category?



EDIT: In reply to the post above this one: The British tradition/law (recently changed) that all pubs must close at 11pm and no alcohol can be sold after that time is a remnant of the industrial revolution's domination over the lives of the workers. The pubs closed at 11pm so that the workers wouldn't stay out all night drinking. After all, the factories won't be making a good profit if all the workers are drunk and hungover in the morning, but they still need a few solid hours of drinkin' the sorrows of the mills away.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

And guys like Michelangelo and Rafael created their works of art for no money and weren't patrons of the wealthy, right TS?

[gregulus]

RON PAUL: REVOLUTION!


edit: those signs would be a lot color if the "evol" wasn't backwards and they represented for sonic youth. i bet ron paul doesn't even like sonic youth. god damn ron paul.


this is serious business. ****ING SERIOUS.

[irishslappop]

And guys like Michelangelo and Rafael created their works of art for no money and weren't patrons of the wealthy, right TS?

yeah bro, im gonna paint the ENTIRE SISTINE CHAPEL for the hell of it.

Whats your point? the reason the arts are dieing away is because funding for them is completely gone. there are no patrons anymore.

[totah]

RON PAUL: REVOLUTION!


edit: those signs would be a lot color if the "evol" wasn't backwards and they represented for sonic youth. i bet ron paul doesn't even like sonic youth. god damn ron paul.


this is serious business. ****ING SERIOUS.

I heard Pon Raul is really racist. I think Celebrity Death Match should do an Election Night Special of Ron Paul vs Barack Obama.

Oh God the American Election Year is the best show on TV. No channels get as much ratings as the news channels on the years you guys get to decide which puppet you think is the funniest. It's a Big Brother Phone-In Vote Contest but better.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

yeah bro, im gonna paint the ENTIRE SISTINE CHAPEL for the hell of it.

Whats your point? the reason the arts are dieing away is because funding for them is completely gone. there are no patrons anymore.

The hell are you talking about? Look in any magazine and tell me the photography in the ads or pictures isn't art. Watch any TV show and tell me the writing, direction, and editing isn't crafted to create a final, artistic product. Listen to any CD produced, from Soulja Boy to the London Philharmonic, and tell me it has no artistic merit. Look at any car on the road and tell me that the whole machine, from the finely-tuned innerworkings of its engine to the graceful lines of its frame to the soft leather seating are not on par with the Mona Lisa or The Last Supper

People pay for all of these. It's all patronage

[Independent_CA]

We should combine the two ideas and have a revaissance!

OOOOOH!

[monkeysonmars.]

I disagree with your viewpoint, seriously. Poverty levels might be high but work wasn't that integrted as you make it seem. I don't have the time to go looking up the relevant studies right now, but I might have some next week (starting tuesday) I'll be happy to cite you some then. ;)

You still haven't answered me though, do you know what Taylorism is? Why do you think he came up with that? The need to control the "worker" in the factory and even out
side of it? The complaints about the working man taking too flexible hours, flexible days and refusing to stay in one place but constantely getting up and moving? Why do you think Napoleon introduced the Cahiers?

Sorry this is really late I've had exams on (done now \:D/). I do not know what Taylorism is (other than what i've just read on wiki) but it dates around the turn of the 20th century right? seems we're talking about different periods generally. the employment situation was completely different 200 years ago to what it was 100 years ago, around the late 19th early 20th century all i really know of is the housing situation and welfare reforms but i'm sure everything you say is true. regardless i think that compare 2oo years ago with today and compare 100 years ago with today and you can get the same analysis to different degrees, that being people have more personal orientated lives now.

this may be a generalisation but it's obvious that politics has changed and the way we see politics has changed (compare republicanism of the Machiavellian kind with classical pluralism), i think a logical explanation for this is the priority we put on politics diminishing because economic prosperity has allowed us to focus on personal happiness more.

[Smokey D]

The priority people attach to politics probably peaked in the mid 20th century.

[monkeysonmars.]

if you see politics as of instrumental value rather than intrinsic which kind of highlights my point i think. plus you've got to take universal vote franchise into account in that period which makes it a bit of an anomaly.

[Smokey D]

if you see politics as of instrumental value rather than intrinsic which kind of highlights my point i think.

Er, what do you mean?

[monkeysonmars.]

well if you go way back to Aristotle then politics is part of 'the good life', the whole point of the polis is to achieve 'the good life'. Humanists thought that politics developed human potential their ability to put the common good before the individual good. Compare that to classical pluralism which pretty much dominates modern politics where politics is just preference selection in a sort of consumerist model, everyone is part of groups trying to use power to gain what is best for them. this is how i see the change in politics anyway where our obligations as citizens are now to pay taxes and obey the laws, not even vote necessarily. This is partly because political communities have changed in size but also because (i think) economic prosperity has made politics (as we see it atm) less important.


also i realised in my original post i did talk about the turn of the 20th century so the confusion is my fault there.

[-1up!-]

On a sideline, this consumerist tendency in modern politics may well be attributed to liberalism. Liberalism focuses on your rights and freedoms as an individual (your "negative liberty"), making politics a somewhat secondary domain in our lives. Liberals (classical liberalism, mind you), in some way, tend to fear the government, minimizing it, restraining it from impeding too much in individuals' lives; this attitude towards government, I think, is well-suited to breed political cynicism.

Aristotle's (and the Ancient Greek, generally) conception of politics as an integral and unavoidable part of any man's life has been the foundation for republicanism, in which more focus is put on the individual's "positive liberty", political participation for example. I'm going a stretch here, but you could say republicanism places more importance on your civil "duties" than your "rights".

Classical liberals (while contemporary liberals aren't as radical, but the influence is there) teach to fear the government and restrain it, in fear of abuse and tyranny; it is essentially an individualist perspective of politics, one that is prone (IMO) to feed cynicism.

Classical republicans teach to participate in the government, and love it as the expression of the people's sovereignty. It is, as opposed to the liberal conception of the state, more "nationalist" than individualist, focusing more on keeping the nation together and united than protecting individuals from each other and from the government.

Of course those are caricatural depictions of both political ideas, but you get the idea. You can clearly see, today, the influence of republicanism on left-wing political thought and of classical liberalism on contemporary liberalism.

[Smokey D]

well if you go way back to Aristotle then politics is part of 'the good life', the whole point of the polis is to achieve 'the good life'. Humanists thought that politics developed human potential their ability to put the common good before the individual good. Compare that to classical pluralism which pretty much dominates modern politics where politics is just preference selection in a sort of consumerist model, everyone is part of groups trying to use power to gain what is best for them. this is how i see the change in politics anyway where our obligations as citizens are now to pay taxes and obey the laws, not even vote necessarily. This is partly because political communities have changed in size but also because (i think) economic prosperity has made politics (as we see it atm) less important.

I think economics (and probably other things) has changed the location of morality, but I don't think it diminishes the importance of politics. Arguably, more people are concerned with politics today because it enables them to select preferences in a manner that never existed before.

[monkeysonmars.]

yeah it's a valid argument, i don't know if i agree with it though, as a student studying politics who doesn't vote.

[-1up!-]

Ah, but a student of politics who doesn't vote is well placed to justify his choice. Refraining from voting is, in itself, a meaningful political gesture. Or so said my political sociology teacher...

The steady drop in voter turnout, observed throughout the XXth century, is an interesting (albeit worrying) phenomenon.

[totah]

I put it down to the rising level of bullcrap in populist politics. As the level of bullcrap rises, the number of voters drops. I made a graph if you want...

[Dave de Sylvia]

Refraining from voting is, in itself, a meaningful political gesture.
Not voting is probably about as meaningless as voting. Not voting is easier though.

[monkeysonmars.]

I put it down to the rising level of bullcrap in populist politics. As the level of bullcrap rises, the number of voters drops. I made a graph if you want...

if that's your explanation you need a reason why the bullcrap is rising.

[Smokey D]

I put it down to the rising level of bullcrap in populist politics. As the level of bullcrap rises, the number of voters drops. I made a graph if you want...

That's kinda the opposite of how populism works.

[Reaganista]

Not voting is probably about as meaningless as voting. Not voting is easier though.

very true

[totah]

if that's your explanation you need a reason why the bullcrap is rising.

I could definitely venture a guess or two. But I can't be bothered to sink into this discussion. Suffice to say that I don't need to see the sun in order to feel its warmth on my skin; I can see the huge levels of bullcrap and bollocks in mainstream politics without needing to spot the reason for it. Spotting the reason is only good for fixing it.

That's kinda the opposite of how populism works.

I probably meant "popular", as in mainstream, as in politics that isn't community-oriented.

[monkeysonmars.]

I could definitely venture a guess or two. But I can't be bothered to sink into this discussion. Suffice to say that I don't need to see the sun in order to feel its warmth on my skin; I can see the huge levels of bullcrap and bollocks in mainstream politics without needing to spot the reason for it. Spotting the reason is only good for fixing it.


if you can't spot the reason for the 'cause', how do you know it is the cause and not the effect? you know 'the sun is the cause of warmth on the skin' and not 'warmth on your skin causes the sun' because one has an explanation and the other doesn't. to state a cause it must have explanatory power on the effect, e.g. bullcrap rises, why? because voters are more apathetic, why? because of higher levels of personal satisfaction, why? because of improving economic prosperity etc

[totah]

if you can't spot the reason for the 'cause', how do you know it is the cause and not the effect? you know 'the sun is the cause of warmth on the skin' and not 'warmth on your skin causes the sun' because one has an explanation and the other doesn't. to state a cause it must have explanatory power on the effect, e.g. bullcrap rises, why? because voters are more apathetic, why? because of higher levels of personal satisfaction, why? because of improving economic prosperity etc

Whoah, slow down there cowboy. Are you high? Usually I have to be at least a little bit high before I start jumping to such conclusions. Ok, so point by point (Allah curse you, you've pulled me into this):

a) Every cause is also an effect. C&E is just the way the universe works. An E is created by a C and is also the C of a following E. There is no end to it. The universe isn't CE. It's CECECECECE ad infinitum. But as a human being with senses (which is everything you and I are, nothing more), I can sense the bullcrap in politics, without necessarily understanding its history or its destination. This isn't something I arrived at through logical analysis; it is pure self-evidence. It is simply there, regardless of how I choose to explain it.

b) Why does personal satisfaction create apathy? I must have been away on holiday when the steering committee took this on as a policy for normal human behaviour. When someone is comfortable and happy you don't see them withdrawing from social life. However most anybody can withdraw from mainstream politics (even as a voter) for any number of reasons. Parliamentary politics (or mainstream, or anything you'd like to call it; circus is a good one) isn't the be all and end all of human social existence. The simple (self-evident) fact that 99% of the population has a social life but less than 1% of the population attends parliamentary discussions is proof.

c) There are now more poor people than in any other time in history (both on a global and national level). This doesn't hint at widespread economic satisfaction to me. And since when did "personal satisfaction" have anything to do with being rich, or even well-off? Are you suggesting that every person in the world that doesn't make a five-figure salary is by default dissatisfied with their life, regardless of health, family, liberty and love life? That's silliness.

d) But at least in the West there are high levels of personal dissatisfaction which are due to economic situations. Speak to anybody that doesn't own a computer and 24/7 access to the internet. Rent in almost every Western nation has jumped hugely (more than doubled) just over the last few years. Do you have any idea how hard it is to pay rent in big cities now? Ten years ago it was expensive only relative to countryside prices. Now it's lost all logical proportions. Ditto the price of gas and electricity. Where I live we're all working like donkeys to make ends meet, and we're the majority in this country (we the non-rich, we the working lot). So please, call it economic prosperity again.


To recap: There is no economic prosperity; there is little personal satisfaction besides what we create for ourselves (call this a life? We push this big rock up a hill eight hours a day so we can watch it roll back down at the end of the month when the gas bills and the landlord come); apathy there is most definitely, I don't really have time to read papers apart from when I'm on my break or (like now) on vacation, so how am I expected to know, much less give a twinkle, what somebody is doing? I definitely used to, back when I didn't have rent and a job. So I guess it comes down to this: Rich people have the privilege to carry on voting and tell everybody else that the system doesn't work because the country is flooded in money and all the poor folk are apathetic because of all the new **** we get to buy.

Bollllllllocks.

[monkeysonmars.]

a) Every cause is also an effect. C&E is just the way the universe works. An E is created by a C and is also the C of a following E. There is no end to it. The universe isn't CE. It's CECECECECE ad infinitum. But as a human being with senses (which is everything you and I are, nothing more), I can sense the bullcrap in politics, without necessarily understanding its history or its destination. This isn't something I arrived at through logical analysis; it is pure self-evidence. It is simply there, regardless of how I choose to explain it.
we're not trying to justify the observation that there is bollocks in politics here, you should be justifying your explanation of the bollocks which is something that is not self-evident and does need logical analysis.

b) Why does personal satisfaction create apathy? I must have been away on holiday when the steering committee took this on as a policy for normal human behaviour. When someone is comfortable and happy you don't see them withdrawing from social life. However most anybody can withdraw from mainstream politics (even as a voter) for any number of reasons. Parliamentary politics (or mainstream, or anything you'd like to call it; circus is a good one) isn't the be all and end all of human social existence. The simple (self-evident) fact that 99% of the population has a social life but less than 1% of the population attends parliamentary discussions is proof.
this bit is getting ignored because it doesn't even challenge anything I said.

c) There are now more poor people than in any other time in history (both on a global and national level). This doesn't hint at widespread economic satisfaction to me. And since when did "personal satisfaction" have anything to do with being rich, or even well-off? Are you suggesting that every person in the world that doesn't make a five-figure salary is by default dissatisfied with their life, regardless of health, family, liberty and love life? That's silliness. again this has little relevance to anything I said. we're talking about a political phenomenon specific to economically developed nations, in economically developed nations absolute poverty has fallen. in regards to money and satisfaction, money decreases the level of dissatisfaction in the realm of politics. obviously you can't buy love.

d) But at least in the West there are high levels of personal dissatisfaction which are due to economic situations. Speak to anybody that doesn't own a computer and 24/7 access to the internet. Rent in almost every Western nation has jumped hugely (more than doubled) just over the last few years. Do you have any idea how hard it is to pay rent in big cities now? Ten years ago it was expensive only relative to countryside prices. Now it's lost all logical proportions. Ditto the price of gas and electricity. Where I live we're all working like donkeys to make ends meet, and we're the majority in this country (we the non-rich, we the working lot). So please, call it economic prosperity again.
rent rises, the price of food rises, wages rise.

To recap: There is no economic prosperity; there is little personal satisfaction besides what we create for ourselves (call this a life? We push this big rock up a hill eight hours a day so we can watch it roll back down at the end of the month when the gas bills and the landlord come); apathy there is most definitely, I don't really have time to read papers apart from when I'm on my break or (like now) on vacation, so how am I expected to know, much less give a twinkle, what somebody is doing? I definitely used to, back when I didn't have rent and a job. So I guess it comes down to this: Rich people have the privilege to carry on voting and tell everybody else that the system doesn't work because the country is flooded in money and all the poor folk are apathetic because of all the new **** we get to buy sorry no economic prosperity? this is all rubbish basically

[totah]

we're not trying to justify the observation that there is bollocks in politics here, you should be justifying your explanation of the bollocks which is something that is not self-evident and does need logical analysis.

I didn't give any reason. I just said that this political system is bollocks.

this bit is getting ignored because it doesn't even challenge anything I said.

Yes it does. You said it's bollocks because there's general apathy because of all the usual capitalist propaganda. I then attempted to go about disproving, from my own personal experience (which is by far the best source for proving or disproving anything), your explanation for voter apathy. If you don't want to acknowledge my rebuttal then the discussion is over. Sorry.

again this has little relevance to anything I said. we're talking about a political phenomenon specific to economically developed nations, in economically developed nations absolute poverty has fallen. in regards to money and satisfaction, money decreases the level of dissatisfaction in the realm of politics. obviously you can't buy love.

Define poverty. Because in America I know that millions of people are living below the "poverty line", ditto UK. I also happen to know that as of four months ago, ten million people in Israel don't have access to three meals a day (or so the government said, but if I can't trust their information whose can I trust?:rolleyes:).

rent rises, the price of food rises, wages rise.

Except that they don't. Theory is fine as long as it's all in theory, but rent and house prices have been rising "dramatically" (ie. a lot) over the last couple decades, along with inflation, but the minimum wage has barely budged, and definitely not enough to account for the other rises. Thank **** we still have government subsidised bread or half this dried out country would be in the food lines.

sorry no economic prosperity? this is all rubbish basically

iPods and razors do not count as economic prosperity. I don't care how cheap the designer clothes are, I still have to work my butt off to pay rent, bills and council tax. I have little to spend after that. Mostly on food and the occassional gig/smoke/drink/guitar string. Economic prosperity is when there's no economic precarity. Everything else is crap on the shelves that I wouldn't take home for free.

[Smokey D]

Are you honestly trying to argue that there is more poverty in the world today than there was 200 years ago?

Poverty today is more obvious only because there is more wealth to compare it to.

[totah]

Dude, poverty's completely relative. They say subsistence farmers are living in poverty. Yet they get by year after year, and have stable support for their community/family.

When I say poverty I mean people who are actually starving, or people who are paid just enough so that they're not starving. I mean the exploited. I mean the kids going through rubbish dumps and rescuing half-eaten McDonald's meals to take home. This is real poverty to me and it's caused because other people have too much and won't share. This is poverty that eats away at your self-dignity. I'd take being a subsistence farmer in Mexico over a homeless guy walking from shelter to shelter and sleeping in cardboard box city.

[Smokey D]

No, poverty is not relative. That's the point.

Actually, I lie. There are two kinds of poverty -- objective and subjective.

Objective poverty is the kind people are talking about when they say 'there are 1 billion people living on less than a dollar a day' and stuff like that. It is the most closely correlated to standard of living, especially in poorer parts of the world. The higher the objective poverty rate, the lower the life expectancy, the lower the education levels, the greater the incidence of conflict and political unrest. There are probably complex causes and feedback mechanisms involved that I don't really want to go into, but this sort of poverty is not relative. And it has decreased since the industrial revolution. This is unequivocal.

Subjective poverty is the kind measured against other people's wealth. People living in this kind of poverty cannot afford the life of their peers, but not necessarily that they are objectively poor.


When I say poverty I mean people who are actually starving, or people who are paid just enough so that they're not starving. I mean the exploited. I mean the kids going through rubbish dumps and rescuing half-eaten McDonald's meals to take home. This is real poverty to me and it's caused because other people have too much and won't share. This is poverty that eats away at your self-dignity. I'd take being a subsistence farmer in Mexico over a homeless guy walking from shelter to shelter and sleeping in cardboard box city.

Subsistence farming and homeless people are both examples of extreme objective poverty. Not to mention that the number of people in this position has decreased.

[monkeysonmars.]

buying luxuries does not equate to economic prosperity? by your very ability to purchase them you must be able to afford necessities fairly comfortably. or maybe that's why you struggle to pay the rent, stop buying ipods.

[Hoyle00cdn]

this may be a generalisation but it's obvious that politics has changed and the way we see politics has changed (compare republicanism of the Machiavellian kind with classical pluralism), i think a logical explanation for this is the priority we put on politics diminishing because economic prosperity has allowed us to focus on personal happiness more.

I'm having trouble seeing how Machiavelli and Classical Pluralism can be compared.

The Machiavellian model has more to do with IR theory and the interactions between states. It has less to do with with civic duty and the domestic political process.

Would you mind explaining your point a bit further?

[Hoyle00cdn]

Aristotle's (and the Ancient Greek, generally) conception of politics as an integral and unavoidable part of any man's life has been the foundation for republicanism, in which more focus is put on the individual's "positive liberty", political participation for example. I'm going a stretch here, but you could say republicanism places more importance on your civil "duties" than your "rights".

It's actually the other way around, unless our definitions of republicanism are different.

Aristotle: "Rule or be Ruled" (emphasis on civic duty)
Republicanism: "Sue or be Sued" (emphasis on civic rights)

You might be confusing civic duty with patriotism or nationhood.

[monkeysonmars.]

IR theory is a very prominent user of Machiavelli's writings (people talk about the four models of realism being based on Machiavelli, Hobbes, Rousseau and Thucydides) but in IR theory they tend to generalise his work a lot (I've read it described as 'butchered') into a simplistic model that fits for realism. The work he created in this context (mostly The Prince) is not the whole of what Machiavelli is about. He was a Republican of the Renaissance era in his advocacy of active citizenship, as with many in the Republican theme he saw self-government as almost the definition of liberty, he said something about eternal vigilance being the price of liberty.

I also think 1up! is understating that point about duties and rights, i've always seen that as the primary divergence between liberalism and republicanism. There's no doubt that liberalism is heavily rights based and i would put Aristotle more in the republican camp than the liberal.

[Hoyle00cdn]

IR theory is a very prominent user of Machiavelli's writings (people talk about the four models of realism being based on Machiavelli, Hobbes, Rousseau and Thucydides) but in IR theory they tend to generalise his work a lot (I've read it described as 'butchered') into a simplistic model that fits for realism. The work he created in this context (mostly The Prince) is not the whole of what Machiavelli is about. He was a Republican of the Renaissance era in his advocacy of active citizenship, as with many in the Republican theme he saw self-government as almost the definition of liberty, he said something about eternal vigilance being the price of liberty.
Machiavellianism is a politics term often used to described the tactical use of manipulation and deception for personal gain. Machievelli may have been a part of the republican institution, but it was that very same institution that imprisoned him with months of torture. His vision of the world after that was forever skewed.

And I'm pretty sure Rousseau was an historicist, not a realist.

[edit]I stand corrected, you CAN be a realist and historicist at the same time.

[monkeysonmars.]

You can't reduce Machiavelli's life works to the term 'Machiavellian'. He was strongly in the Republican tradition and wrote his main republican work (Discourses on Livy) in the years after he was arrested and released.

Rousseau was not explicitly a realist, that is kind of the point. His writing is used to explain realist theory. eg he wrote the stag hunt which is a classic explanation of the security dilemma in relation to the social contract, it was later used to explain that aspect of game theory in realism

[Hoyle00cdn]

You can't reduce Machiavelli's life works to the term 'Machiavellian'. He was strongly in the Republican tradition and wrote his main republican work (Discourses on Livy) in the years after he was arrested and released.

Rousseau was not explicitly a realist, that is kind of the point. His writing is used to explain realist theory. eg he wrote the stag hunt which is a classic explanation of the security dilemma in relation to the social contract, it was later used to explain that aspect of game theory in realism

I'm not talking about Machiavelli's his life's work or Prince relationship to Discourse. You used the word Machiavellian model and in the world of political theory, Machiavellianism or the Machiavellian model means exactly how i defined it above.

[monkeysonmars.]

ok well i apologize. i meant to refer to the politics of Machiavelli, I guess Machiavellian was misleading. Like you said I was trying to compare Machiavelli to classical pluralism.

[Hoyle00cdn]

ok well i apologize. i meant to refer to the politics of Machiavelli, I guess Machiavellian was misleading. Like you said I was trying to compare Machiavelli to classical pluralism.

Fair enough. That's why I said at the beginning that we were probably attributing different definitions to the term.

I've never really read all of Machiavelli's Discourse on Livy, but did have to read excerpts. From what I could tell 'Discourse' appeared to be how Machiavelli wanted to envision politics, while 'Prince' was his vision of what it actually was. You're right, there is a duality to Machiavelli's work, but it appears that the former view was usually suppressed out of fear of the power the latter view had.

[monkeysonmars.]

The really interesting thing about Machiavelli was that he didn't like democracy or monarchy or any individual ruling scheme, he advocated a mix. so one way of seeing how the two books are different yet on a theme is by seeing that he saw neither rule by a prince (the prince) or rule by the people (Discourses) as adequate and they had to be combined.

[-1up!-]

It's actually the other way around, unless our definitions of republicanism are different.

Aristotle: "Rule or be Ruled" (emphasis on civic duty)
Republicanism: "Sue or be Sued" (emphasis on civic rights)

You might be confusing civic duty with patriotism or nationhood.

I have no idea what conception of republicanism you're referring to, but modern republicanism (the French revolution was a prime example, albeit a radical one, of republican values being expressed and applied) has strong roots in the Classical era, namely Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire. Aristotle is definitely in the roots of republican thought.

Just to make it clear, when I speak of republicanism it has nothing to do with the American Republican party.

The "sue or be sued" thing is clearly liberal - it concerns rights, and nothing is more obsessed with rights than liberalism.